More Like this

1. Investing in Instructors: Creating Intelligent Feedback Loops in Large Foundational Courses for Undergraduate Engineeringg

   Grohs, J.R. ; Knight, D.B. ; Soledad, M.M. ; Case, S.W. ; Murzi, H.G. ; Smith, N. ( June 2018 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   The drive to encourage young people to pursue degrees and careers in engineering has led to an increase in student populations in engineering programs. For some institutions, such as large public research institutions, this has led to large class sizes for courses that are commonly taken across multiple programs. While this decision is reasonable from an operational and resource management perspective, research on large classes have shown that students suffer decreased engagement, motivation and achievement. Instructors, on the other hand, report having difficulty establishing rapport with their students and a growing inability to monitor students’ learning gains and provide quality individualized feedback. To address these issues, our project draws from Lattuca and Stark’s Academic Plan model, which incorporates a thorough consideration of factors influencing curricular activities that can be applied at the course, program, and institutional levels, and assumes that instructors are key actors in curriculum development and revision. We aim to revitalize feedback loops to help instructors and departments continuously improve. Recognizing that we must understand both individual and systems level perspectives, we prioritize regular engagement between faculty and institutional support structures to collaboratively identify problems and systematically establish continuous improvement. In the first phase of this NSF IUSE Institutional Transformation project, we focus on specifically prompting and studying the experiences of 8 instructors of foundational engineering courses usually taught in large class sizes across 4 different departments at a large public research institution. We collected qualitative data (semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, course-related documents) and quantitative data (student surveys and institution-provided transcript data) to answer research questions (e.g., what data do faculty teaching large foundational undergraduate engineering courses identify as being useful so that they may enhance students’ experiences and outcomes within the classes that they teach and across students’ multiple large classes?) at the intersection of learning analytics and faculty change. The data was used as a baseline to further refine data collection protocols, identify data that faculty consider meaningful and useful for managing large foundational engineering courses, and consider ways of productively leveraging institutional data to improve the learning experience in these courses. Data collection for the first phase is ongoing and will continue through the Spring 2018 semester. Findings for this paper will include high-level insights from Fall interviews with instructors as well as data visualizations created from the population-level data characterizing student performance in the foundational courses within the context of pre-college characteristics (e.g., SAT scores) and/or other academic outcomes (e.g., major switching within or out of engineer, degree attainment). 

   more » « less
2. Institutional Change Efforts to Improve the Environment for Both Instructors and Students in Foundational Engineering Courses

   Grohs, J.R. ; Knight, D.B. ; Soledad, M.M. ; Murzi, H. ; Smith, N. ( June 2019 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   Foundational engineering courses are critical to student success in engineering programs. The conceptually challenging content of these courses establishes the requisite knowledge for future classes. Thus, it is no surprise that such courses can serve as barriers or gatekeepers to successful student progress through the undergraduate curriculum. Although the difficulty of the courses may be necessary, often other features of the course delivery such as large class environments or a few very high-stakes assessments can further exacerbate these challenges. And especially problematic, past studies have shown that grade penalties associated with these courses and environments may disproportionately impact women. On the faculty side, institutions often turn to non-tenure track instructional faculty to teach multiple sections of foundational courses each semester. Although having faculty whose sole role is dedicated to quality teaching is an asset, benefits would likely be maximized when such faculty have clear metrics for paths to promotion, some autonomy and ownership regarding the curriculum, and overall job satisfaction. However, literature suggests that faculty, like students, note ill effects from large classes, such as challenges connecting and building rapport with students and having time to offer individualized feedback to students. Our NSF IUSE project focuses on instructors of large foundational engineering students with the belief that by better understanding the educational environment from their perspective we can improve the quality of the teaching and learning environment for all engineering students. Our project regularly convenes faculty teaching an array of core courses (e.g,. Mathematics, Chemistry, Mechanics, Physics) and uses insights from these meetings and individual interviews to identify possible leverage points where our project or the institution more broadly might affect change. Parallel to this effort, we have been working with data stewards on campus to gain access to institutional data (e.g., student course and grade histories, student evaluations of faculty teaching) to link and provide aggregate deidentified results to faculty to feed more information in to their decision-making. We are demonstrating that regular engagement between faculty and institutional leaders around analyzed and curated data is essential to continuous and systematic improvement. Efforts to date have included building an institutional data explorer dashboard (e.g., influences of pre-requisite courses on future courses) and drafting reports to be sent to department heads and associate deans which gather priorities identified in the first year of our research. For example, participating instructors identified that clarity of promotion paths across non-tenure track teaching faculty from different departments varied greatly, and the institution as a whole could benefit from clarified university-wide guidance. While some findings may be institution-specific (NSF IUSE Institutional Transformation track), as a large public research institution, peer-institutions with high engineering enrollments often face similar challenges and so findings from our change efforts potentially have broad applicability. 

   more » « less
3. Where’s My Whiteboard? The Challenge of Moving Active-learning Mathematics Classes Online

   Nelson, Jill K. ; Rosenberg, Jessica ; Fernandez, Kathryn ; Shank, Julie ( July 2021 , 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   This research paper studies the challenges that mathematics faculty and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) faced when moving active and collaborative calculus courses from in-person to virtual instruction. As part of a larger pedagogical change project (described below), the math department at a public Research-1 university began transitioning pre-calculus and calculus courses to an active and collaborative learning (ACL) format in Fall 2019. The change began with the introduction of collaborative worksheets in recitations which were led by GTAs and supported by undergraduate learning assistants (LAs). Students recitation periods collaboratively solving the worksheet problems on whiteboards. When COVID-19 forced the rapid transition to online teaching, these ACL efforts faced an array of challenges. Faculty and GTA reflections on the changes to teaching and learning provide insight into how instructional staff can be supported in implementing ACL across various modes of instruction. The calculus teaching change efforts discussed in this paper are part of an NSF-supported project that aims to make ACL the default method of instruction in highly enrolled gateway STEM courses across the institution. The theoretical framework for the project builds on existing work on grassroots change in higher education (Kezar and Lester, 2011) to study the effect of communities of practice on changing teaching culture. The project uses course-based communities of practice (Wenger, 1999) that include instructors, GTAs, and LAs working together to design and enact teaching change in the targeted courses alongside ongoing professional development for GTAs and LAs. Six faculty and five GTAs involved in the teaching change effort in mathematics were interviewed after the Spring 2020 semester ended. Interview questions focused on faculty and GTA experiences implementing active learning after the rapid transition to online teaching. A grounded coding scheme was used to identify common themes in the challenges faced by instructors and GTAs as they moved online and in the impacts of technology, LA support, and the department community of practice on the move to online teaching. Technology, including both access and capabilities, emerged as a common barrier to student engagement. A particular barrier was students’ reluctance to share video or participate orally in sessions that were being recorded, making group work more difficult than it had been in a physical classroom. In addition, most students lacked access to a tablet for freehand writing, presenting a significant hurdle for sharing mathematical notation when physical whiteboards were no longer an option. These challenges point to the importance of incorporating flexibility in active learning implementation and in the professional development that supports teaching changes toward active learning, since what is conceived for a collaborative physical classroom may be implemented in a much different environment. The full paper will present a detailed analysis of the data to better understand how faculty and GTA experiences in the transition to online delivery can inform planning and professional development as the larger institutional change effort moves forward both in mathematics and in other STEM fields. 

   more » « less
4. Factors Influencing Course Withdrawal in Fundamental Engineering Courses in a Research 1 University

   Woods, J.C. ; Chowdhury, T.M. ; Murzi, H. ; Soledad, M ; Knight, D.B. ; Grohs, J.R. ; Case, S.W. ; Smith, N. ( June 2019 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   Engineering students develop competencies in fundamental engineering courses (FECs) that are critical for success later in advanced courses and engineering practice. Literature on the student learning experience, however, associate these courses with challenging educational environments (e.g., large class sizes) and low student success rates. Challenging educational environments are particularly prevalent in large, research-intensive institutions. To address concerns associated with FECs, it is important to understand prevailing educational environments in these courses and identify critical points where improvement and change is needed. The Academic Plan Model provides a systematic way to critically examine the factors that shape the educational environment. It includes paths for evaluation and adjustment, allowing educational environments to continuously improve. The Model may be applied to various levels in an institution (e.g., course, program, college), implying that a student’s entire undergraduate learning experience is the result of several enacted academic plans that are interacting with each other. Thus, understanding context-specific factors in a specific educational environment will yield valuable information affecting the undergraduate experience, including concerns related to attrition and persistence. In order to better understand why students are not succeeding in large foundational engineering courses, we developed a form to collect data on why students withdraw from certain courses. The form was included as a requirement during the withdrawal process. In this paper, we analyzed course withdrawal data from several academic departments in charge of teaching large foundational engineering courses, and institutional transcript data for the Spring 2018 semester. The withdrawal dataset includes the final grades that students expected to receive in the course and the factors that influenced their decision to withdraw. Institutional transcript data includes demographic information (e.g., gender, major), admissions data (e.g., SAT scores, high school GPA), and institutional academic information (e.g., course grades, cumulative GPA). Results provide a better understanding of the main reasons students decide to withdraw from a course, including having unsatisfactory grades, not understanding the professor, and being overwhelmed with work. We also analyzed locus of control for the responses, finding that the majority of students withdrawing courses consider that the problem is outside of their control and comes from an external source. We provide analysis by different departments and different specific courses. Implications for administrators, practitioners, and researchers are provided. 

   more » « less
5. Teaching virtual protein‐centric CUREs and UREs using computational tools

   Bell, Anthony. ( September 2020 , Biochemistry and molecular biology education)

   Responding to the need to teach remotely due to COVID-19, we used readily available computational approaches (and developed associated tutorials (https://mdh-cures-community.squarespace.com/virtual-cures-and-ures)) to teach virtual Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) laboratories that fulfil generally accepted main components of CUREs or Undergraduate Research Experiences (UREs): Scientific Background, Hypothesis Development, Proposal, Experiments, Teamwork, Data Analysis, Conclusions, and Presentation1. We then developed and taught remotely, in three phases, protein-centric CURE activities that are adaptable to virtually any protein, emphasizing contributions of noncovalent interactions to structure, binding and catalysis (an ASBMB learning framework2 foundational concept). The courses had five learning goals (unchanged in the virtual format),focused on i) use of primary literature and bioinformatics, ii) the roles of non-covalent interactions, iii) keeping accurate laboratory notebooks, iv) hypothesis development and research proposal writing, and, v) presenting the project and drawing evidence based conclusions The first phase, Developing a Research Proposal, contains three modules, and develops hallmarks of a good student-developed hypothesis using available literature (PubMed3) and preliminary observations obtained using bioinformatics, Module 1: Using Primary Literature and Data Bases (Protein Data Base4, Blast5 and Clustal Omega6), Module 2: Molecular Visualization (PyMol7 and Chimera8), culminating in a research proposal (Module 3). Provided rubrics guide student expectations. In the second phase, Preparing the Proteins, students prepared necessary proteins and mutants using Module 4: Creating and Validating Models, which leads users through creating mutants with PyMol, homology modeling with Phyre29 or Missense10, energy minimization using RefineD11 or ModRefiner12, and structure validation using MolProbity13. In the third phase, Computational Experimental Approaches to Explore the Questions developed from the Hypothesis, students selected appropriate tools to perform their experiments, chosen from computational techniques suitable for a CURE laboratory class taught remotely. Questions, paired with computational approaches were selected from Modules 5: Exploring Titratable Groups in a Protein using H++14, 6: Exploring Small Molecule Ligand Binding (with SwissDock15), 7: Exploring Protein-Protein Interaction (with HawkDock16), 8: Detecting and Exploring Potential Binding Sites on a Protein (with POCASA17 and SwissDock), and 9: Structure-Activity Relationships of Ligand Binding & Drug Design (with SwissDock, Open Eye18 or the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE)19). All involve freely available computational approaches on publicly accessible web-based servers around the world (with the exception of MOE). Original literature/Journal club activities on approaches helped students suggest tie-ins to wet lab experiments they could conduct in the future to complement their computational approaches. This approach allowed us to continue using high impact CURE teaching, without changing our course learning goals. Quantitative data (including replicates) was collected and analyzed during regular class periods. Students developed evidence-based conclusions and related them to their research questions and hypotheses. Projects culminated in a presentation where faculty feedback was facilitated with the Virtual Presentation platform from QUBES20 These computational approaches are readily adaptable for topics accessible for first to senior year classes and individual research projects (UREs). We used them in both partial and full semester CUREs in various institutional settings. We believe this format can benefit faculty and students from a wide variety of teaching institutions under conditions where remote teaching is necessary. 

   more » « less